Detailed Action1
America Invents Act Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 USC 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of an informality: a comma should be inserted between “insert body” and “wherein the axial support surfaces” in line 44. Appropriate correction is required.
Rejections under 35 USC 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112:
(B) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 6, 8-9, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112 (b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 6 recites the insert seat in question in each of lines 7 and 12. It is unclear which insert seat is in question. The examiner recommends amending these limitations to recite: “when the thread milling insert is mounted in one of the first and second insert seats”.
Claims 8 and 9 each recite a thread milling insert in both of lines 5 and 7. It is unclear if this is referring to one of the thread milling inserts introduced in claim 1, or is introducing a second thread milling insert.
Claim 14 recites an insert seat. It is unclear if this is referring to the insert seat introduced in claim 11, or is introducing a second insert seat.
Rejections under 35 USC 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 11-13 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by USPGPub No. 2009/0169312 (“the ‘312 reference”).
Regarding claim 11, the ‘312 reference teaches a thread milling insert arranged for use in a thread milling tool (figs. 3-6, wherein one of skill in the art appreciates that the milling insert is capable of being used to cut threads due to the plurality of teeth arranged in a row), the thread milling insert comprising: an elongated insert body having a first end (16a) and an opposite second end (16b) (figs. 3 & 5), wherein the insert body includes first and second major faces (14a & 14b) arranged on opposite sides of the insert body and serving as top and bottom faces of the thread milling insert (figs. 3-5), and wherein the insert body is provided with an axial abutment surface, which is located at the first end (16a) of the insert body and which is configured to abut against a corresponding axial support surface in an insert seat in the thread milling tool when the thread milling insert is mounted in the insert seat (figs. 3 & 5). The examiner notes that the thread milling tool is not a positively recited element, thus the insert of the ‘312 reference merely has to be capable of being mounted in a seat so that the axial abutment surface abuts against an axial support surface. One of skill in the art appreciates that a hypothetical tool can have a seat with an axial support surface that abuts the axial abutment surface of the cutting insert.
The ’312 reference further teaches a plurality of teeth (17a-17c) arranged one after the other in a row along a peripheral side of the insert body that is located between the first and second major faces and that extends between the first and second ends of the insert body (figs. 3 & 5, ¶ [0031]), each tooth having a first cutting edge on a first side of the tooth facing the first major face and a second cutting edge on an opposite second side of the tooth facing the second major face, wherein the first and second cutting edges on each tooth are mirror symmetrical to each other with respect to a median plane of the insert body that extends halfway between the first and second major faces of the insert body (fig. 4, ¶ [0030]-[0031]), wherein the insert body has mirror symmetry with respect to the median plane of the insert body (figs. 3-5, ¶ [0031], wherein the drawings of the insert body look symmetrical, and wherein the disclosure in ¶ [0031] of the insert capable of being reversed teaches one of skill in the art that the insert body is symmetric about the median plane), mirror asymmetry with respect to any other plane across the insert body, and rotational asymmetry with respect to any axis across the insert body (figs. 3-5, wherein the insert body is asymmetric with respect to any other plane across the insert body (besides the median plane), and rotationally asymmetric with respect to any axis across the insert body due to the through hole 28 at only one end of the insert body).
Claim 12 recites the insert body has an end section at its first end with a shape that differs from a shape of a corresponding end section at the second end of the insert body. The insert body of the ‘312 reference includes a section 28 at a first end thereof that has a shape (i.e. a circular through-hole) that is different than the shape of a corresponding end section at the second end (figs. 3 & 5, wherein the second end of the insert body has no circular through-hole at a section opposite to hole 28).
Regarding claim 13, the ‘312 reference further teaches the axial abutment surface on the insert body is formed by an end surface on the insert body at the first end thereof (see figs 3 & 5, wherein the first end 16a also forms the axial abutment surface).
Regarding claim 15, the ‘312 reference further teaches said plurality of teeth are at least three in number (fig. 3, wherein three teeth 17a-17c are illustrated).
Rejections under 35 USC 1032
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious3 before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 5, and 7-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over USPGPub No. 2008/0044239 (“Sjoo”).
Regarding claim 1, Sjoo teaches a thread milling tool (¶ [0001]) comprising: an elongated tool body having a front end (i.e. end with seats 205) and an opposite rear end (3) (figs. 15-17, ¶ [0026]), the rear end being configured for attachment to a machine (¶ [0026]), wherein a longitudinal axis of the tool body extends between the rear end and the front end of the tool body (fig. 15-17); at least one pair of insert seats provided in the tool body and including a first insert seat and a second insert seat (figs. 15-17, ¶ [0040]-[0041], wherein the first insert seat is interpreted as a forwardmost seat and the second insert seat is interpreted as the axially intermediate seat), the first and second inserts seats being angularly offset from each other with respect to the longitudinal axis of the tool body and axially offset from each other in the longitudinal direction of the tool body with the first insert seat being located closer to the front end of the tool body than the second insert seat (figs. 15-17), wherein each one of the first and second insert seats has a first end and an opposite second end, the first end of each one of the first and second insert seats being arranged closer to the front end of the tool body than the opposite second end of the same insert seat (figs. 15-17); and several substantially geometrically identical thread milling inserts (107), each being detachably mountable in a respective insert seat of the at least one pair of insert seats (figs. 15-17, ¶ [0028]-[0030] & [0040], e.g. via screws) and comprising: an elongated insert body having a first end and an opposite second end (i.e. ends 106) (figs. 12-14, ¶ [0036]), wherein the insert body includes first and second major faces (108) arranged on opposite sides of the insert body and serving as top and bottom faces of the thread milling insert (figs. 12-14, ¶ [0036]), and wherein the insert body is provided with an axial abutment surface (figs. 12-14, i.e. surface at one end 106 of the inserts), which is located at the first end of the insert body and which is configured to abut against a corresponding axial support surface (19) in the first insert seat when the thread milling insert is mounted in the first insert seat (figs. 1, 11 & 15-17, ¶ [0032]) and to abut against a corresponding axial support surface (19) in the second insert seat when the thread milling insert is mounted in the second insert seat (figs. 1, 11 & 15-17, ¶ [0032]), and a plurality of teeth arranged one after the other in a row along a peripheral side of the insert body that is located between the first and second major faces and that extends between the first and second ends of the insert body (figs. 12-14, i.e. teeth of the tooth edge 109), wherein each tooth of the plurality of teeth has a first cutting edge on a first side of the tooth facing the first major face and a second cutting edge on an opposite second side of the tooth facing the second major face (fig. 14, ¶ [0035]), the first cutting edges of the plurality of teeth forming a first group of cutting edges and the second cutting edges of the plurality of teeth forming a second group of cutting edges, wherein the first group of cutting edges and the second group of cutting edges are mirror symmetrical to each other with respect to a median plane of the insert body that extends halfway between the first and second major faces of the insert body (fig. 12-14, ¶ [0035], wherein the drawings of the insert look symmetrical, and wherein the disclosure in ¶ [0035] of the insert capable of being reversed teaches one of skill in the art that the insert is symmetric about the median plane).
Sjoo further teaches the axial support surfaces in the first and second insert seats of said at least one pair of insert seats are arranged: with the axial support surface in the first insert seat located at the second end of the first insert seat and facing the front end of the tool body (figs. 15-17, wherein surface 19 is at second end of seat and facing the front end).
Sjoo also teaches axial support surface 19 at the second end of the second insert seat, thus, Sjoo fails to explicitly teach the axial support surface in the second insert seat located at the first end of the second insert seat and facing the rear end of the tool body. However, mere reversal or rearrangement of parts is an obvious design choice (see MPEP 2144.04(VI)(A) & (C)). In this case, Sjoo teaches means for adjusting the axial position of cutting inserts, including a collar 15 having a chamfered surface 19 such that rotating screw 17 axially displaces the cutting insert (figs. 1 & 4, ¶ [0030]-[0033]). As further illustrated in figs. 15-17 of Sjoo, the cutout for each second seat is larger than the cutting inserts so that the cutout extends axially beyond each axial end of the cutting insert and serrations 204 of the seat. Merely reversing or changing the position of the axial positioning means in the second seat so that it is at a front of the cutting insert would not change the function of the axial positioning means since the chamfered surface 19 of the collar 15 will still be able to adjust the axial position of the cutting insert by abutting an axial end of the cutting insert. Thus, it would be an obvious design choice to reverse or rearrange the axial positioning means of the second seat so that it is in front of the cutting insert such that axial support surface 19 is at the first end of the seat and faces the rear end of the tool body.
Claim 1 also recites each one of the thread milling inserts is configured with the first and second insert seats of said at least one pair of insert seats such that the thread milling insert is: mountable in the first insert seat in one single working position with the axial abutment surface on the insert body of the thread milling insert abutting against the axial support surface in the first insert seat and with one of said first and second groups of cutting edges in an active cutting position, and mountable in the second insert seat in one single working position with the axial abutment surface on the insert body of the thread milling insert abutting against the axial support surface in the second insert seat and with the other one of said first and second groups of cutting edges in an active cutting position. Since Sjoo teaches the cutting insert being reversible (see figs. 12-14 & ¶ [0035]-[0036]), each insert 107 can be arranged to that the axial abutment surface contacts either of the axial support surfaces of the first and second seats so that different groups of cutting edges are in the active position.
Regarding claim 5, Sjoo further teaches the axial abutment surface on the insert body of each one of the thread milling inserts is formed by an end surface (106) on the insert body at the first end thereof (figs. 11-14).
Regarding claim 7, Sjoo further teaches said plurality of teeth are at least three in number (figs. 12-13).
Claim 8 recites the first and second insert seats of said at least one pair of insert seats have such axial positions in relation to each other in the tool body that the axial distance between the tooth closest to the second end of the first insert seat on a thread milling insert mounted in the first insert seat and the tooth closest to the first end of the second insert seat on a thread milling insert mounted in the second insert seat is substantially equal to the axial distance between two adjacent teeth on any of these thread milling inserts. As illustrated in annotated fig. 17 of Sjoo, provided below, the axial positions of the frontmost milling inserts can be changed so that a front end of the milling inserts are aligned with the front end of the tool body, and so that a front end of the milling inserts are forward of the front end of the milling body.
PNG
media_image1.png
742
850
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Given the relatively small pitch between adjacent teeth of each milling insert, and given the axial position difference between the two forwardmost milling inserts illustrated in the annotated figure above, one of skill in the art will reasonably infer that the axial positioning means of Sjoo can be used to meet the claim limitation of claim 8.
Claim 9 recites the first and second insert seats of said at least one pair of insert seats have such axial positions in relation to each other in the tool body that the tooth closest to the second end of the first insert seat on a thread milling insert mounted in the first insert seat and the tooth closest to the first end of the second insert seat on a thread milling insert mounted in the second insert seat are located at the same axial position in the tool body and thereby overlap each other in the longitudinal direction of the tool body. As illustrated in annotated fig. 17 of Sjoo, provided in the rejection to claim 8 above, the inserts of Sjoo in the first and second seats appear to be overlapping (e.g. the left forwardmost insert and the axially intermediate insert). Thus, given the axial positioning means provided in each of the first and second seats, one of skill in the art would reasonably infer that the inserts in the first and second seats can be adjusted so that the rear tooth of the first insert at least partially overlaps with the front tooth of the second insert.
Regarding claim 10, Sjoo further teaches two or more such pairs of insert seats are provided in the tool body, wherein the first insert seats of the different pairs of insert seats are located at the same axial position in the tool body and are evenly distributed about the longitudinal axis of the tool body, and wherein the second insert seats of the different pairs of insert seats are located at the same axial position in the tool body and are evenly distributed about the longitudinal axis of the tool body (figs. 15-17 ,wherein three pairs are illustrated that have the same axial location and are evenly distributed about the longitudinal axis).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sjoo as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of USPGPub No. 2009/0169312 (“the ‘312 reference”).
Regarding claim 2, Sjoo also teaches the insert body of each one of the thread milling inserts having a mirror symmetry with respect to the median plane of the insert body (fig. 12-14, ¶ [0035], wherein the drawings of the insert body look symmetrical, and wherein the disclosure in ¶ [0035] of the insert capable of being reversed teaches one of skill in the art that the insert is symmetric about the median plane).
Sjoo fails to explicitly teach the insert body having a mirror asymmetry with respect to any other plane across the insert body, and rotational asymmetry with respect to any axis across the insert body. However, this would have been obvious in view of the ‘312 reference.
The ‘312 reference is also directed to a cutting insert having a plurality of teeth arranged in a row, wherein the insert is symmetrical about the median plane NP so the cutting insert is reversible to allow the cutting edges on either side of the teeth to be active (figs. 1-6, ¶ [0030] & [0031]). The ‘312 reference teaches the cutting insert having holes 18 for mounting screws, and having one hole 28 on one side of the insert to allow a user to keep track of the orientation of the reversible cutting insert in the tool body or with regrinding the teeth (figs. 3 & 5, ¶ [0031]).
In this case, each of Sjoo and the ‘312 reference teach a reversible cutting insert having a plurality of teeth in a row—each tooth having opposite first and second cutting edges. It would be predictable that providing a relatively small through-hole at one end of the insert body will allow a user to keep track of the orientation of the cutting insert when mounted on a tool body or when regrinding the teeth. Thus, it would be obvious to modify the insert body of Sjoo to provide a relatively small through hole at one end of the insert body.
Given the above modification, the insert body is asymmetric with respect to any other plane across the insert body (besides the median plane), and rotationally asymmetric with respect to any axis across the insert body (due to the through hole only at one end of the insert body).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sjoo as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of WO-2011018210-A1 (“Edelmann”).
Regarding claim 6, Sjoo also teaches the insert body of each one of the thread milling inserts includes a radial abutment surface (figs. 11-14, i.e. surface opposite tooth edge 109), which is formed on a peripheral side of the insert body opposite to the peripheral side provided with said teeth and which is configured to abut against a corresponding radial support surface in any of the first and second insert seats when the thread milling insert is mounted in the insert seat in question (fig. 11, wherein the radial abutment surface opposite tooth side 109 abuts against a corresponding radial support surface of the seat).
Sjoo fails to explicitly teach an inclined peripheral side surface, which forms a connection between the axial and radial abutment surfaces on the insert body and which is configured to face a corresponding inclined surface in any of the first and second insert seats when the thread milling insert is mounted in the insert seat in question. However, this would have been obvious in view of Edelmann.
Edelmann also teaches a thread milling insert having a plurality of teeth in a row, wherein the insert body has axial surfaces and a radial abutment surface (figs. 2-3 & 17-10, ¶ [0001]-[0002] & [0077], wherein all references to the Edelmann specification refer to the machine translation submitted herewith). Edelmann teaches that the radial abutment surface connects to the axial surfaces via chamfers 51 & 52 (fig. 19, ¶ [0111]).
In this case, each of Sjoo and Edelmann are directed to a thread milling insert having a plurality of teeth in a row, wherein the insert body has axial surfaces and a radial abutment surface. It is generally well known that the connection between two perpendicular surfaces can be via a right-angled edge, chamfer, or fillet, wherein chamfers and fillets reduce the sharp edge of a right angle to prevent damage and injury. Edelmann teaches one of skill in the art that it is predictable to provide a chamfer between axial and radial surfaces of a thread milling insert. Thus, in order to prevent damage to the edge and reduce the sharpness, it would be obvious to modify the insert body of Sjoo so that the connection between the radial abutment surface and the axial end surfaces is made via a chamfer.
Given the above modification, the chamfer between the axial and radial abutment surfaces is configured to face an inclined surface in any of the first and second insert seats when the insert is mounted in the first or second seat (see fig. 11 of Sjoo, wherein the seat comprises an inclined surface adjacent to sleeve 14, and a chamfer between the radial and axial abutment surfaces will face in the direction of the inclined surface).
Claims 11-13 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sjoo in view of the ‘312 reference.
Claim 11 recites a thread milling insert, wherein all the limitations are found in claims 1 and 2. As detailed in the rejections to claims 1 and 2, above, Sjoo in view of the ‘312 reference teach all the limitations of claim 11.
Claim 12 recites the insert body has an end section at its first end with a shape that differs from a shape of a corresponding end section at the second end of the insert body. Sjoo has been modified in view of the ‘312 reference to have a circular through hole at a first end thereof (in view of hole 28 of the ‘312 reference). This through-hole satisfies this claim limitation. For example, using the ‘312 reference as an example, the insert body of the ‘312 reference includes a section 28 at a first end thereof that has a shape (i.e. a circular through-hole) that is different than the shape of a corresponding end section at the second end (figs. 3 & 5, wherein the second end of the insert body has no circular through-hole at a section opposite to hole 28).
Regarding claim 13, Sjoo further teaches the axial abutment surface on the insert body is formed by an end surface (106) on the insert body at the first end thereof (figs. 11-14).
Regarding claim 15, Sjoo further teaches said plurality of teeth are at least three in number (fig. 12-13).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sjoo et al. as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of Edelmann.
Regarding claim 14, Sjoo further teaches the insert body includes a radial abutment surface (figs. 11-14, i.e. surface opposite tooth edge 109), which is formed on a peripheral side of the insert body opposite to the peripheral side provided with said teeth and which is configured to abut against a corresponding radial support surface in an insert seat in the thread milling tool when the thread milling insert is mounted in the insert seat (fig. 11, wherein the radial abutment surface opposite tooth side 109 abuts against a corresponding radial support surface of the seat).
Sjoo et al. fails to explicitly teach an inclined peripheral side surface, which forms a connection between the axial and radial abutment surfaces on the insert body. However, this would have been obvious in view of Edelmann for the same reasons detailed in the rejection to claim 6, above.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the ‘312 reference as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of Edelmann.
Regarding claim 14, the ‘312 reference further teaches the insert body includes a radial abutment surface (15b), which is formed on a peripheral side of the insert body opposite to the peripheral side provided with said teeth (figs. 3-5) and which is configured to abut against a corresponding radial support surface in an insert seat in the thread milling tool when the thread milling insert is mounted in the insert seat (figs. 1-2). The examiner notes that the thread milling tool is not a positively recited element, thus the insert of the ‘312 reference merely has to be capable of being mounted in a seat so that the radial abutment surface abuts against a radial support surface. Since the teeth of the insert is configured to extend outward from a tool (see figs. 1-2 of the ‘312 reference), one of skill in the art appreciates that a hypothetical tool can have a seat with a radial support surface that abuts the radial abutment surface of the cutting insert.
The ’312 reference fails to explicitly teach an inclined peripheral side surface, which forms a connection between the axial and radial abutment surfaces on the insert body. However, this would have been obvious in view of Edelmann.
Edelmann also teaches a thread milling insert having a plurality of teeth in a row, wherein the insert body has axial surfaces and a radial abutment surface (figs. 2-3 & 17-10, ¶ [0001]-[0002] & [0077], wherein all references to the Edelmann specification refer to the machine translation submitted herewith). Edelmann teaches that the radial abutment surface connects to the axial surfaces via chamfers 51 & 52 (fig. 19, ¶ [0111]).
In this case, each of the ‘312 reference and Edelmann are directed to a thread milling insert having a plurality of teeth in a row, wherein the insert body has axial surfaces and a radial abutment surface. It is generally well known that the connection between two perpendicular surfaces can be via a right-angled edge, chamfer, or fillet, wherein chamfers and fillets reduce the sharp edge of a right angle to prevent damage and injury. Edelmann teaches one of skill in the art that it is predictable to provide a chamfer between axial and radial surfaces of a thread milling insert. Thus, in order to prevent damage to the edge and reduce the sharpness, it would be obvious to modify the insert body of the ‘312 reference so that the connection between the radial abutment surface and the axial end surfaces is made via a chamfer.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-4 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Sjoo teaches the milling inserts to be reversible in any of the insert seats. Thus, it is not obvious without hindsight to modify Sjoo so that the milling inserts can be mounted in the first insert seat in only the one claimed position, and mounted in the second insert seat in only the one claimed position.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Kyle Cook whose telephone number is 571-272-2281. The examiner’s fax number is 571-273-3545. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 9AM-5PM EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, please contact the examiner's supervisor Thomas Hong (571-272-0993). The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/KYLE A COOK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3726
1 The following conventions are used in this office action. All direct quotations from claims are presented in italics. All information within non-italicized parentheses and presented with claim language are from or refer to the cited prior art reference unless explicitly stated otherwise.
2 In 103 rejections, when the primary reference is followed by “et al.”, “et al.” refers to the secondary references. For example, if Jones was modified by Smith and Johnson, subsequent recitations of “Jones et al.” mean “Jones in view of Smith and Johnson”.
3 Hereafter all uses of the word “obvious” should be construed to mean “obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.”